Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixty Minute War


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. No sources indicating notability. Keep votes don't give appropriate reasons.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sixty Minute War

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Plot element from a series of novels, not independently notable (WP:GNG) for lack of substantial third party coverage. Not appropriate for a merger, as it consists only of excessive plot summary (WP:WAF).  Sandstein  19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep One editor with a bug up his ass, hoping to delete anything and everything about a large set of articles about a well-known series of novels, hoping that the sheer volume of this mass-tagging can overwhelm the fanboy supporters. WP does fiction - get over it. If you don't like that, then I suggest you start with Articles for deletion/Kryptonite. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Vomiting your hatred for another user's opinion is not going to help keeping this article. I can see absolutely no valid point whatsoever in your comment, only personal attacks, which is why it won't be taken into account and you'll be warned for it. Don't forget to read WP:AFDEQ.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete this article. Nathan.f77 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * you're wrong because it doesn't have any third party reliable source establishing its notability and it is only a plot rehash which is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Saying "keep" just for the sake of it and without any valid justification other than your own, subjective opinion on fiction which is contrary to the community consensus, is not going to save this article...Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Per the total absence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, this "article" fails WP:GNG, thus is not notable and doesn't have anything to do on Wikipedia. The "article" in itself already violates WP:NOTPLOT as it is only a big plot summary devoid of any secondary information and written entirely with an in-universe perspective, thus violating WP:WAF.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The topic is not notable - the only sources are from the books themselves. Completely in-universe and with no evidence of real-world notability. Neither of the keep votes go beyond WP:ILIKEIT. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: personal attacks and ignorance of policy aside... we do delete articles when they are not independently notable. Need third-party sources to WP:verify notability of this plot element, but no sources offer any substantial detail. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.